Category Archives: the Reformation

David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc picked yet another losing war against freedom of the press and of speech. This one was an official complaint and proceeding launched against UK Channel Four and Roast Beef Productions for their documentary Scientologists at War. Of course, only the finest and most expensive lawyers that could be bought in London took up the Scientology cudgel. The results were published in the official publication of England’s official agency (Ofcom) tasked with upholding standards of fairness in media. The Scientology case can be found at page 43 of OfComm’s latest journal. It is an informative read.

David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc. have of late taken to waving the flags of the American Nazi Party and the Westboro Baptist Church. They are spending huge sums in order to convince some that their own activity belongs in the same category as those august institutions. They don’t even try to argue that their conduct is not outrageous or unconscionable in a civilized society. Instead, they claim it is their Constitutional right to practice retribution, terrorism and ruination upon those who refuse to relinquish their own First Amendment rights to speak and worship as they choose.

Regardless of their individual failures or successes in this expensive positioning endeavor, there is legal precedent that protects you should you ever be targeted by the Scientology Inquisition. It is the decision of the California Court of Appeals in the original Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology of California case.

The following is a reprint of the particular section of that decision that deals with Scientology heretics and their treatment at the hands of the Scientology Inquisition:

B. Even Assuming the Retributive Conduct Sometimes Called “Fair Game” Is a Core Practice of Scientology It Does Not Qualify for Constitutional Protection

As we have seen, not every religious expression is worthy of constitutional protection. To illustrate, centuries ago the inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe. This religious practice involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. (See generally Peters, Inquisition (1988); Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1961).) Yet should any church seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?

We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day “inquisition.” Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. “Fair game” like the “inquisition” targeted “heretics” who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once “proven” to be a “heretic,” an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death. (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp. 57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134; Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) As described in the evidence at this trial the “fair game” policy neutralized the “heretic” by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. (See, e.g., *889 Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444 [129 Cal.Rptr. 797] [former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part of “fair game” policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].)

In the instant case, at least, the prime focus of the “fair game” campaign was against the “heretic” Wollersheim’s economic interests. Substantial evidence supports the inference Scientology set out to ruin Wollersheim’s photography enterprise. Scientologists who worked in the business were instructed to resign immediately. Scientologists who were customers were told to stop placing orders with the business. Most significantly, those who owed money for previous orders were instructed to renege on their payments. Although these payments actually were going to a factor not Wollersheim, the effect was to deprive Wollersheim of the line of credit he needed to continue in business.

Appellant argues these “fair game” practices are protected religious expression. They cite to a recent Ninth Circuit case upholding the constitutional right of the Jehovah’s Witness Church and its members to “shun” heretics from that religion even though the heretics suffer emotional injury as a result. ( Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875.) In this case a former Jehovah’s Witness sued the church and certain church leaders for injuries she claimed to have suffered when the church ordered all other church members to “shun” her. In the Jehovah Witness religion, “shunning” means church members are prohibited from having any contact whatsoever with the former member. They are not to greet them or conduct any business with them or socialize with them in any manner. Thus, there was a clear connection between the religious practice of “shunning” and Ms. Paul’s emotional injuries. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed her case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an opinion which expressly held “shunning” is a constitutionally protected religious practice. “[T]he defendants, … possess an affirmative defense of privilege – a defense that permits them to engage in the practice of shunning pursuant to their religious beliefs without incurring tort liability.” ( Id. at p. 879.)

We first note another appellate court has taken the opposite view on the constitutionality of “shunning.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church (1975) 462 Pa. 330 [341 A.2d 105].) In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted a situation similar to Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York. The plaintiff was a former member of the Mennonite Church. He was excommunicated for criticizing the church. Church leaders ordered that all members must “shun” the plaintiff. As a result, both his business and family collapsed. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, holding: “In our opinion, the complaint, … raises issues that the ‘shunning’ practice of appellee church and the conduct of the *890 individuals may be an excessive interference within areas of ‘paramount state concern,’ i.e., the maintenance of marriage and family relationship, alienation of affection, and the tortious interference with a business relationship, which the courts of this Commonwealth may have authority to regulate, even in light of the ‘Establishment’ and ‘Free Exercise’ clauses of the First Amendment.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, supra, 341 A.2d at p. 107, italics in original.)

We observe the California Supreme Court has cited with apparent approval the viewpoint on “shunning” expressed in Bear v. Mennonite Church, supra, rather than the one adopted in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra. (See Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1114.) But even were Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York the law of this jurisdiction it would not support a constitutional shield for Scientology’s retribution program. In the instant case Scientology went far beyond the social “shunning” of its heretic, Wollersheim. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possibly psychologically. Unlike the plaintiff in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Wollersheim did not suffer his economic harm as an unintended byproduct of his former religionists’ practice of refusing to socialize with him any more. Instead he was bankrupted by a campaign his former religionists carefully designed with the specific intent it bankrupt him. Nor was this campaign limited to means which are arguably legal such as refusing to continue working at Wollersheim’s business or to purchase his services or products. Instead the campaign featured a concerted practice of refusing to honor legal obligations Scientologists owed Wollersheim for services and products they already had purchased.

If the Biblical commandment to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to render unto God what is God’s has any meaning in the modern day it is here. Nothing in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York or any other case we have been able to locate even implies a religion is entitled to constitutional protection for a campaign deliberately designed to financially ruin anyone – whether a member or nonmember of that religion. Nor have we found any cases suggesting the free exercise clause can justify a refusal to honor financial obligations the state considers binding and legally enforceable. One can only imagine the utter chaos that could overtake our economy if people who owed money to others were entitled to assert a freedom of religion defense to repayment of those debts. It is not unlikely the courts would soon be flooded with debtors who claimed their religion prohibited them from paying money they owed to others.

We are not certain a deliberate campaign to financially ruin a former member or the dishonoring of debts owed that member qualify as “religious *891 practices” of Scientology. But if they do, we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices. (See pp. 884-886, supra.) Accordingly, we hold the freedom of religion guaranties of the United States and California Constitutions do not immunize these practices from civil liability for any injuries they cause to “targets” such as Wollersheim.

For further parallels between Miscavige’s Scientology Inc. and the perpetrators of the original Grand Inquisition, see The Scientology Reformation.

Many have speculated why the Miscavige obsession with our family is so intense and seemingly inexorable. Miscavige has spent millions in a variety of forums attempting to explain or justify it. The writings on that score in his publications, legal threats to media, and legal pleadings and utterances from his PR hacks and agents – including the deep ranks of expensive attorneys – are so far-ranging, self-contradictory and red herring in nature, that they are unhelpful in discerning the answer to the question: why such an obsession? Yet, the answer is apparent, by the repeated expression of our objectives right here on this blog as well as in a number of media interviews. Below are several excerpts and links to support the ideat that the motivation for Miscavige’s mania lies in his need to resurrect the effectiveness of Scientology’s domestic terror apparatus.

To stand and communicate one’s convictions and defend the rights of other friends to do the same is the remedy for Miscavige’s brand of terrorism. It can make one feel healthier and more whole. If enough people follow your lead, it will lead to the end of the Scientology reign of terror.

People who have simply exercised their abilities to be there and comfortably confront when faced with Church intimidation tactics – and not allowed themselves to be drawn into flash fights and the resultant creation of ridges – have as-is’d the invaders. That has happened most frequently when the person being targeted by the Church has the comfort of knowing he has people who are behind him or her with unconditional love. It is quite remarkable.

I am fairly certain that if a decent percentage of independent Scientologists stand up, identify themselves, and freely associate with like-minded friends in the light of day at least three things will happen:

a. Many individual lives will regain meaning. Many more lives still will reap the gains from each of us who independently and freely use Scientology with no other motivation than to help others reach higher states of beingness.

b. Scientology (the subject and community) will experience a renaissance within society at large.

c. Miscavige’s church will be forced to either radically reform by reversing its suppressive operating basis or face its inevitable demise (note the intransitive is used; it is not because of anything that you or I will do to it that will cause it other than being their comfortably – it will be a self-inflicted fate).

One primary purpose behind encouraging people to overtly declare their independence was to break the back of the mafia-like protection racket run by the C of M. That is, to help people get out from under the black cloud of intimidation and threatened execution of forced disconnection for purposes of breaking Scientologists’ wills and independent thought processes. The idea has proven workable. Each person who overtly straightens his back demonstrates to many more how incapable the C of M is to ride straight backs. For each who does so overtly, dozens more begin to straighten their own by witnessing it can be done without serious repercussion and seeing tall walking people blossoming.

The pathetic and empty nature of their threats serves as confirmation of my oft-repeated analysis: AS INDEPENDENTS BECOME MORE NUMEROUS AND COURAGEOUS, RADICAL SCIENTOLOGY’S RESOURCES TO HARASS WILL BECOME MORE DISSIPATED AND THEIR “ATTACKS” WILL BECOME LESS AND LESS EFFECTIVE. And so it has played itself out in that fashion.

People who have been following this blog for some time understand that this is a message I have often repeated: when enough real Scientologists stand up and be heard as Independents, Miscavige’s resources will be spread so thin trying to intimidate them that his actions will be so ineffectual that the world will see there is nothing to fear from Radical Corporate Scientology.

It apparently has come to pass that from Miscavige’s perspective too many people have stood up and been counted so that Scientology has lost its terror-control factor. There are not enough resources to re-corral or make examples of all those who have stood and are continuing to do so, nor even a significant portion of them. Apparently, in the mind of Miscavige the only way to discredit the notion that Scientology can no longer hunt you to the grave if you dissent is to very visibly and thoroughly destroy the guy who widely and repeatedly asserted that there was nothing to fear – and the current state of affairs to gain – by standing up.

A new friend of mine handed me a copy of a remarkable little book on Sunday. It is called As a Man Thinketh, by James Allen. The book contain this little, precious pearl on freedom from slavery:

It has been usual for men to think and to say, ‘Many men are slaves because one is an oppressor; let us hate the oppressor.’ Now, however, there is among an increasing few a tendency to reverse this judgment, and to say, ‘One man is an oppressor because many are slaves; let us despise the slaves.’ The truth is that oppressor and slave are cooperators in ignorance, and, while seeming to afflict each other, are in reality afflicting themselves. A perfect Knowledge perceives the action of law in the weakness of the oppressed and the misapplied power of the oppressor; a perfect Love, seeing the suffering that both states entail, condemns neither; a perfect Compassion embraces both oppressor and oppressed.

He who has conquered weakness, and has put away all selfish thoughts, belongs neither to oppressor nor oppressed. He is free.

Contemplating the toxic waste that has come from the tortured mind of David Miscavige and relayed to the world by Scientology Inc and their ethics-challenged attorneys of late, I thought it might be a good time for some clarification.

During my hiatus from the subject of Scientology – 05-08 – I spent a great deal of time studying the abolition movement of the 19th Century. That included a lot of reading of the works and about the lives of the leading lights of America’s second revolution; including Paine, Emerson, Garrison, Thoreau, Harriett Tubman and Frederick Douglass. I worked during ’06 with an educational entertainment teacher I met at the Buffalo Soldiers Museum in Houston. She recruited me to play Old John Brown to her Harriett Tubman. We were invited to perform at the 2006 NAACP convention in Washington D.C. We traveled with all NAACP delegates by chartered train to Harper’s Ferry for the NAACP’s special commemoration to Brown and W.E.B. Dubois. Here is “Harriett” and me at the reconstructed old fire house at Harper’s Ferry where Brown made his last stand:

During this period, probably the most influential work that directed my attention back to Scientology and contemplating the effects it had had on me and others was Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Particularly compelling to me was Douglass’ description of his childhood realization of the first – and most viciously enforced – mechanic of slavery. That rule was that slaves were prohibited to learn. It is understandable. The slave holders correctly reckoned that if a slave learned to read it might lead to independent thinking. It might also lead to reading books and learning about the world outside the plantation. And of course that could lead to notions about expanding one’s horizons and leaving slavery in order to do so.

This 05-08 period really informs everything I have attempted to accomplish since. Abolition of slavery.

My first public utterance about Scientology was posted in February, 2009. It has been continuously posted since, as the Welcome Page on this blog. Since that time it encompasses everything I have said and done in relation to David Miscavige, Scientology Inc., the subject of Scientology and Scientologists.

This ride has entailed operating an underground railroad to assist with the physical escape from slavery. Remember the chronicles of John (JB) Brousseau and Daniel Montalvo. When those bright or desperate enough to make that move called, we were there for them (and still are should the need arise again).

Having counseled somewhere upward of 150 people directly, and hundreds more through correspondence, and having continued our own education and evolution through the journey, I find we are still holding true to the original representation on the Welcome Page. However, having evolved and having studied the origins and mechanisms of Scientology and its particular effects on Scientologists from all walks of life, we have learned about its sophisticated mechanisms that create mental slavery.

It was puzzling to us that David Miscavige would continue to be obsessed with us after we did everything in our power to move away from confrontation, give him the benefit of the doubt in published essays and books, and simply assist individually with those former slaves who needed a hand straightening up their spines and freeing their minds.

It was only a review of this broader history and its context that answered the conundrum for me. It serves to confirm for me that in fact we are accurately discovering and communicating the slave master’s ‘tech’ for manning his dwindling plantations. His response is the same as the nineteenth-century slave holders’s response to the abolitionists. That is, attempt to re-enslave them or to ruin them utterly of course if possible, short of re-enslavement.

The following unalterable, senior policy of Scientology has been in continuous effect since March 1955 to the present. It might help explain a few things you have observed.

The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself much MORE CHARGING and you will WIN. And the public, seeing that you won, will then have a communication line to the effect that Scientologists WIN. Don’t ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives.

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.